French Politicians Fight over Le Pen's Legacy

A strange thing is going on in France. Politicians are positioning themselves for the 2007 presidential elections when the French will have to chose a successor for Jacques Chirac. It is not in the mold of the repulsive and corrupt Chirac, however, that the contenders want to present themselves, but in that of Jean-Marie Le Pen.

I met Le Pen twenty years ago at an international press conference that the Front National leader was giving in Brussels. He made quite an impression. The mainstream media were very hostile to Le Pen (they still are), which made me instinctively sympathise with him. I was about the only conservative journalist in Belgium and because of this I was not very popular with my overwhelmingly liberal colleagues. During the press conference they tried to roast Le Pen, but he roasted them instead.

When at a certain moment an arrogant Brit from The Guardian asked Le Pen a denunciatory question, the latter bluntly replied: “I do not answer that question. Next question!” The journalist retorted: “I have a right to ask this question,” whereupon Le Pen: “And I have a right not to answer it.”

Although I disagree with some of his opinions – his anti-Semitism, his anti-Americanism, his economic protectionism – and though his style is often needlessly provocative and offensive, Le Pen is by far the most authentic of all the French politicians. In last week’s SpectatorTaki wrote that it would have been better for France if Le Pen had become president in 2002. It would have been better for the whole of Europe.

Ever since he founded the FN in 1972, Le Pen has been warning that multiculturalism is dangerous nonsense, that no-go areas should not be allowed to exist, that immigrants should assimilate and that the French have the right to be at home in their own country. If only some of the conservative politicians had been as perceptive as Le Pen, or had had his courage. If the so-called “extreme right” is as popular as it is today in Europe, it is the so-called respectable and moderate right that is to blame.

“For years, if not for decades we’ve been repeating our alarm of a massive immigration from outside Europe that will result in the submergence and ruin of France, and unhappiness of the immigrants themselves!” Le Pen said at a meeting last Tuesday. The mainstream media are as dismissive as ever. According to a UPI correspondent who was present at the meeting, Le Pen did not speak but “bellow.” A liberal university professor, quoted by the same correspondent, said that Le Pen builds “his political fortunes on a fear of violence coming from the suburbs.” His words betray moral repulsion for such an attitude. What is wrong with a politician addressing the fears of the electorate if these fears are justified?

Another political ‘expert’ quoted in the same article opines that those who cheer Le Pen today may, as they get older, “be very happy to have these immigrants [around] – to pay for our social security, to pay for our retirement funds.” Only liberal political ‘experts’ can be so naive as to think that immigrants who deeply despise the natives and their culture will be prepared to finance the latter’s future welfare benefits. Le Pen’s voters, who live next door to the immigrants in the suburbs, know better than the journalists and correspondents, the university professors and the other ‘experts’ in their bourgeois neighbourhoods.

In 2002 Le Pen thrashed the left-wing parties, once the parties of the natives in the suburbs, and became Chirac’s contender in the second round of the presidential elections. The press, the intellectuals and the ‘experts’ were “stunned” and “convulsed” at what in their eyes was an “unexpected” success for Le Pen. Today they know what the future has in store for them. They can only hope that the 77-year old Le Pen will be too old to stand for election in 2007.

Because of Le Pen’s age, many politicians see opportunities, too. Like a typical politician Jean-Marie Le Pen has not provided for a political heir. He eliminated every potential rival within his own party. Le Pen’s weakness is his nepotism. Though he has not explicitly appointed a successor, he paved the way for his daughter Marine. The ambitious 37-year old lawyer and member of the European Parliament (MEP) shares her father’s anti-islamism but not his ethical conservatism. She is also more of a socialist in economic matters. Because of the latter the liberal media write that the tall and good-looking, fair-haired Marine is “trying to soften the party’s extremist image,” although she is more of a nationalist socialist and less of a conservative than her father was. This will likely lead to FN infighting once the old Le Pen is gone.

The leader of the conservative wing of the party is Bruno Gollnisch, at present the FN’s number 2. The 55-year old Gollnisch is a university professor and also a MEP. He got himself into trouble recently by saying that “There is not a serious historian who still totally agrees with the conclusions of the Nuremberg Trials.” State prosecutors at once opened a judicial investigation to see if Gollnisch can be charged with Holocaust denial, and his university suspended him. Gollnisch was also attacked publicly by Marine Le Pen, who said that French society should reject all statements belittling the gravity of the Holocaust.

Politicians from outside the FN are also positioning themselves to attract Le Pen voters. One of them is the Eurosceptic Count Philippe de Villiers, the leader of the conservative Mouvement pour la France. Count Villiers, too, is a MEP, but his Mouvement is not likely to attract a large following.

Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s Interior Minister, is another contender. It is generally assumed that his “tough” language has to do with his presidential ambitions in 2007, when he hopes to attract “Lepenists.”

Le Pen’s shadow even hangs over the Socialist Party, where some realise that many of Le Pen’s voters are disenchanted former voters of the Left. Yesterday the Parti Socialiste (PS) reappointed François Hollande as its party leader. This makes Hollande the likely socialist candidate for the 2007 elections. The presidential ambitions of former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, however, are well-known. Last May, Fabius positioned himself as the leading opponent of the European constitution within the PS, despite the fact that PS officially backed the constitution and despite the fact that Fabius had always been an outspoken Euro-federalist when he was still Prime Minister. Fabius also opposes Turkey’s admission to the EU, while the PS favours it. By openly appealing to French nationalism and positioning himself as “the Le Pen of the PS” Laurent Fabius hopes to be the electoral favourite by 2007.

It holds the same intrinsic value of truth, equally logical or unlogical for judging the phenomenon Le Pen.

Well, I was just expressing a personal preference. We could also have the logical-historical-political discussion about the phenomenon of Le Pen, but I don't really know that much about him. However, the little I do know, I think I would be unlikely to vote for him if I were French (now there's a thought!).

Oh, and I could come up with lots of reasons to be philo-Semitic, and they would be much more positive than the ones that the anti-Semitic come up with. Violin-playing, for example: that's a good one.

Oh, and I could come up with lots of reasons to be philo-Semitic, and they would be much more positive than the ones that the anti-Semitic come up with. Violin-playing, for example: that's a good one.
I'm an agnostic (so to speak) on this issue, but the one somewhat convincing argument I've heard against the Jews is their key role in establishing the Soviet regime. This was well-known at one time but has understandably gone down the memory hole since the anti-Jewish genocide committed during WW2.

"the one somewhat convincing argument I've heard against the Jews is their key role in establishing the Soviet regime."

"The Jews" eh? Not X jew or Y jew...no, no, THE JEWS.

What an ugly bigot you are.

By the way, I seem to recall that the "somewhat convincing argument" you describe was made forcefully by a German politican a few years back...put it in his autobiography even. It really caught on and was the beginning of a great movement in European history...all ended in tears though. Too bad for you...

Jason, dry your tears and stop your whining.
Steve was merely pointing at the disproportionately vast involvement of Jews and their critical role in the installment of Bolshevism in Russia and elsewhere.
Of course with stating "the Jews" honestly no-one is implying that every single Jew on the planet Earth was involved. Far from it.

When someone states that "the Germans" were at war with "the French" from 1914-1948 no-one is whining and complaining about this. Of course not every single German was fighting every single Frenchman. Nevertheless we substantiate a fairly large amount enough to be able to state this.
Only when it involves Jews and their not so holy reputation people are offended over this.

Just because Hitler claimed it, doens't render it a lie. This reductio ad Hitlerum is frankly quite stupid of you. That non-argument may be used for all sorts of discussions: pro-Catholicism as well as anti-Catholicism. Pro-socialism as well as anti-socialism. Pro-ecologism as well as anti-ecologism. Ad nauseam.
No decent and intelligent person will use this and hope to have made a point.

If you are still unaware of the historically proven ultra-Jewish involvement in setting up Bolshevism and thus mankind's greatest terror upon the Earth, try to read "The Jewish Century" by fellow-Jew Yurri Slezkine.
And after this prof.Kevin MacDonald's book review at VDare. A real eye-opener.

Of course it doesn't, and it was never intended to be a logical argument. Rather it was merely a testament to how ugly such collective reasoning really is.

If you want a logical argument then here: the entire point Steven made is utterly irrelevant to any consideration other than anti-Semitic bigotry. There were plenty of Germans who were involved in the Russian Revolution, not the least of whom was Marx, but one generally doesn't hear such a historical fact couched in terms of "a somewhat convincing argument against the Germans".

That not only gainsays your concatenation between such loosely employed national identities and "the Jews", it also demonstrates how hollow Steven's reasoning is. Simply because Jews were involved in the Russian Revolution, this historical fact provides an "argument against the Jews" how?

How exactly should the word "against" be understood in this regard?

The way I understood it was as a value judgment of worth applied collectively to an entire ethnic/religious group…which is the essence of bigotry my friend. If that is not what Steven meant then I apologize, but that is certainly the way such a statement reads to me.

Of course I can't speak on behalf of Steven.
But the entire philo- or anti-Semitism discussion was based on these grounds of generalisations.
In fact if you follow the entire sequence of answer and reply and forth, the logic of Steve's argument becomes clearer.
Allow me to repeat: Bob wondered how anyone could hold a grudge against Jews. He mentioned violin playing as a pro-argument.
Steve replied with the famous and well-established Jewish role in Bolshevism.

On these grounds there isn't any bigotry.
Did Bob honestly mean that every Jew is a talented violin player?
Did Steve then mean that every Jew, both living and dead, supported and maintained Soviet Rule?

Of course not. "The Jews" played a very substantial if not critical role in establishing Bolshevism both as ideology as state structure. Just like "The Germans" did some substantial fighting from 1914-18 against the French armies.

How come no-one would label someone "Germanophobe" for simply stating the latter? How come the politically correct lot are only concerned when Jews are being criticised?

Did Germans sep up the NSDAP? Did Jews set up the Bolshevist parties of Eastern- and Western Europe?
I think both topics are well documented in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 18, page 717, 1984, just before the semitically-correct censors could attack.

Bob meant that most of the best violin players of the twentieth century were Jewish.

How come the politically correct lot are only concerned when Jews are being criticised?

I don't accept for a moment that the "politically correct lot" are only concerned when Jewish people are criticised. There are vicious prejudices against many groups of people. It is a sad fact though that in Europe especially anti-Semitism has been one of the most vicious. It has been a widely held belief among non-Jewish European people that there is something inherent about Jewish people that makes them, for example, untrustworthy, conspiratorial, greedy and sycophantic. This bigotry conveniently ignore the fact that Jewish people, out of all proportion to their numbers, have made extraordinary contributions to literature, science, politics, music, philosophy, law, business and so on and so on and so on.... In its ultimate and most wicked incarnation it led to the death in gas chambers of millions of Jewish people, but in other times and places it led to untold suffering and blighted lives. Anti-Semitism, like all such bigotries, is utterly corrosive of both persecutor and persecuted.

That Karl Marx and the other Jewish people promulgated revolutionary ideas in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is hardly a cause for shame. By the beginning of the nineteenth century it was perfectly obvious that unfettered industrialism and capitalism was causing untold human misery, and that "something had to be done". It's easier now, with hindsight, to see that liberal capitalism held out the promise (so far unfulfilled) of something better, but you would be a brave person to argue that capitalism per se is morally and practically a better system than any sort of socialism. If you believe in a system based - as capitalism is - on competition and greed, you had better be sure that the long-term consequences are indeed beneficial. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on this one, and will probably be so for a few hundred years yet.

Who we are

The Brussels Journal is written by Europeans, living in as well as outside Europe. The Brussels Journal is published by the Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE), a Swiss non-profit organisation.